Zoning and climate change

[wawa]

An interesting blog post that has a SHITTON of links about all the terrible things exclusionary zoning has done and how we might fix it

Pls do your homework and then let's discuss.

www.housecosmopolitan.com/blog/banning-exclusionary-zoning-introducing-green-zoning

[simpsongal]

Very timely, I went to my first HOA (informal) meeting yesterday and the discussion of our town's development was a hot topic. I'm in a small suburb adjacent to larger urban areas - so lots of concern over traffic and keeping things "small." As I pointed out to the HOA folks, we have a tremendous opportunity in our town to develop 'the right way.' Many of our town center area buildings are old/dilapidated and vacant - it's an odd pastiche of 1970s strip malls and doctors' offices. The town has been entertaining lots of proposals from developers, and they seem to be focusing on the right things - 3-4 story mixed use residential w/store fronts, wide sidewalks & green space, and fewer parking spaces (perhaps a parking garage on the outskirts if necessary). Basically creating more of a walkable town center. I'm excited about it, I just hope there are not too many NIMBYs or old codgers pushing the wrong agenda. I don't want to look like the more outlying suburbs. You'd think they could get some of the Boomers on board - how would you like to move to a dynamic area w/restaurants, shopping, and green space that you don't need to maintain?

ETA: - Just to turn to the article, the only thing I'm skeptical of are the affordability arguments.  It seems to me that in the DC area, any resignation to build multi unit buildings or apartment complexes comes w/the designation that it's "luxury" and starting in the $700s+....hence, we've got people commuting 30-50 miles b/c it's more affordable than living in the new 1000 sq ft condos they're building.

[pixy0stix]

Why do you post interesting things when I have no time?!

[muffin0]

Aug 20, 2019 8:33:25 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Why do you post interesting things when I have no time?!

LOL!

[msmerymac]

I'm a bit of a Richard Florida detractor, but I can't blame them too much for referencing his work, as it's so ubiquitous in urban planning circles.

As I'm sure you know, wawa, Philly's city council is a major political impediment, as any council member pretty much has say over new rules or items affecting their district. New bike lane on 20th St, which is already a lane-and-a-half wide? Nah, that will "impede traffic." Reducing parking minimums? No, because cars. Upzoning certain areas? Obviously not, because FREEDOM and SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

As for my area, they're building things all wrong. My borough was able to preserve the transit we have 10+ years ago when SEPTA wanted to change routes. We basically have a major east-west bus line, a north-south bus line, and the regional rail (we're in the middle of the line, half way to center city, and almost every express AND local train go through our station - which also has a parking lot with hundreds of spaces on one edge of the borough, which people can use for parking on the weekends so they can walk to restaurants, but they still complain there's no parking...). The borough is okay, because we're pretty full up of single family homes, twins, row houses, multi-families and some low-rise apartments on what I consider to be "village" sized lots (my lot is about 5,000 sq ft, and includes a SFH, a side driveway and a one car detached garage). The surrounding townships are allowing more and more "luxury" housing (3000 sq ft+ SFH on 1/4 acre lots, or "carriage homes" on even smaller parcels) and/or 55+ communities. Rarely is retail included. Almost all of these communities need zoning variances, which are inevitably granted. On the flip side, NIMBYs complain about "traffic" and "open space" and just don't want ANYTHING. But then complain about school taxes, too, which could be mitigated with more businesses and, honestly, more old people, lol.

[wawa]

Aug 20, 2019 8:08:12 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

Very timely, I went to my first HOA (informal) meeting yesterday and the discussion of our town's development was a hot topic. I'm in a small suburb adjacent to larger urban areas - so lots of concern over traffic and keeping things "small." As I pointed out to the HOA folks, we have a tremendous opportunity in our town to develop 'the right way.' Many of our town center area buildings are old/dilapidated and vacant - it's an odd pastiche of 1970s strip malls and doctors' offices. The town has been entertaining lots of proposals from developers, and they seem to be focusing on the right things - 3-4 story mixed use residential w/store fronts, wide sidewalks & green space, and fewer parking spaces (perhaps a parking garage on the outskirts if necessary). Basically creating more of a walkable town center. I'm excited about it, I just hope there are not too many NIMBYs or old codgers pushing the wrong agenda. I don't want to look like the more outlying suburbs. You'd think they could get some of the Boomers on board - how would you like to move to a dynamic area w/restaurants, shopping, and green space that you don't need to maintain?

ETA: - Just to turn to the article, the only thing I'm skeptical of are the affordability arguments.  It seems to me that in the DC area, any resignation to build multi unit buildings or apartment complexes comes w/the designation that it's "luxury" and starting in the $700s+....hence, we've got people commuting 30-50 miles b/c it's more affordable than living in the new 1000 sq ft condos they're building.

I posted a local off the blog case study a while ago on the affordability thing that found at least in this very specific example, price strongly correlated with age. So yeah, they open as luxury condos, but 10 years later as long as even newer properties are also coming in, it started to drop in price to be more in line with the existing stock. I've been curious if that is a wide spread phenomenon.

www.justupthepike.com/2019/04/did-silver-spring-build-enough-housing.html?m=1

So sure, middle and lower income people can't afford the brand new luxury condo, but it eases prices on the perfectly reasonable 1970s buildings. For example. My take is that there's not a chance in hell that limiting supply is going to decrease price...so increasing supply is certainly worth a try. Ideally in concert with an inclusive zoning framework.

[simpsongal]

wawa, I think you make a good point! As one who has lived in a variety of older multi-unit places, I can attest to declining value/attractiveness as these properties age

I still can't believe DH's grandmother's townhouse sold a few months ago for a little bit more than she paid almost 30 years ago! And she put a lot of money in to it.

[downtoearth]

This is a great post with so many links. I can't read them all now, but it's similar to my friend who did Green Zoning studies for her grad school work - but this was about 2010 in Colorado. She also had some interesting data about water and infrastructure use and the ability to maintain those more efficiently so as to not sprawl and have to pay so much in pumping stations and long pipe-run costs etc. Plus she had a cool thing about putting apartments/affordable housing in backyards of single family homes and how it builds community, is city infill instead of sprawl, and fosters community since you live somewhat in community with your landlord.

I was just talking to a friend about how to combat sprawl and McMansion issues with people. How we define "making it" by houses and cars and jobs and not by building community and living small (more eco).

[chw57]

Oregon is just about to ban single family zoning and some of my neighbors are acting like the world is ending. Oh no, there might be a triplex on the corner!

[msmerymac]

wawa, how does permeability factor into environmental concerns? Is the thought that the permeable area of the property will likely be the same no matter what's built there? What about areas where there's mandatory spacing between structures. When that changes to become more dense, it affects permeability. Or does the increase in public transit usage and walking off set it? Or does greening roofs of buildings make it not matter as much?

[wawa]

Aug 20, 2019 13:19:41 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

wawa, how does permeability factor into environmental concerns? Is the thought that the permeable area of the property will likely be the same no matter what's built there? What about areas where there's mandatory spacing between structures. When that changes to become more dense, it affects permeability. Or does the increase in public transit usage and walking off set it? Or does greening roofs of buildings make it not matter as much?

Green roof helps. Also current swm regs around here require anything new to mitigate pretty drastically so whatever gets built is going to need to address runoff...also less sprawl means less parking and less road which usually means more room for green and less pressure to disturb truly rural or environmentally sensitive areas.

[wawa]

Aug 20, 2019 11:54:32 GMT -5 downtoearth said:

This is a great post with so many links. I can't read them all now, but it's similar to my friend who did Green Zoning studies for her grad school work - but this was about 2010 in Colorado. She also had some interesting data about water and infrastructure use and the ability to maintain those more efficiently so as to not sprawl and have to pay so much in pumping stations and long pipe-run costs etc. Plus she had a cool thing about putting apartments/affordable housing in backyards of single family homes and how it builds community, is city infill instead of sprawl, and fosters community since you live somewhat in community with your landlord.

I was just talking to a friend about how to combat sprawl and McMansion issues with people. How we define "making it" by houses and cars and jobs and not by building community and living small (more eco).

They just passed accessory dwelling units in one of the md side DC metro counties and you'd think the world had ended. It's still all over my feeds.

There's more things I want to post but theyre on my employer blog and I'm not willing to link my rl identity that clearly!

[carrierroe]

Aug 20, 2019 11:39:31 GMT -5 wawa said:

Aug 20, 2019 8:08:12 GMT -5 simpsongal said:

Very timely, I went to my first HOA (informal) meeting yesterday and the discussion of our town's development was a hot topic. I'm in a small suburb adjacent to larger urban areas - so lots of concern over traffic and keeping things "small." As I pointed out to the HOA folks, we have a tremendous opportunity in our town to develop 'the right way.' Many of our town center area buildings are old/dilapidated and vacant - it's an odd pastiche of 1970s strip malls and doctors' offices. The town has been entertaining lots of proposals from developers, and they seem to be focusing on the right things - 3-4 story mixed use residential w/store fronts, wide sidewalks & green space, and fewer parking spaces (perhaps a parking garage on the outskirts if necessary). Basically creating more of a walkable town center. I'm excited about it, I just hope there are not too many NIMBYs or old codgers pushing the wrong agenda. I don't want to look like the more outlying suburbs. You'd think they could get some of the Boomers on board - how would you like to move to a dynamic area w/restaurants, shopping, and green space that you don't need to maintain?

ETA: - Just to turn to the article, the only thing I'm skeptical of are the affordability arguments.  It seems to me that in the DC area, any resignation to build multi unit buildings or apartment complexes comes w/the designation that it's "luxury" and starting in the $700s+....hence, we've got people commuting 30-50 miles b/c it's more affordable than living in the new 1000 sq ft condos they're building.

I posted a local off the blog case study a while ago on the affordability thing that found at least in this very specific example, price strongly correlated with age. So yeah, they open as luxury condos, but 10 years later as long as even newer properties are also coming in, it started to drop in price to be more in line with the existing stock. I've been curious if that is a wide spread phenomenon.

www.justupthepike.com/2019/04/did-silver-spring-build-enough-housing.html?m=1

So sure, middle and lower income people can't afford the brand new luxury condo, but it eases prices on the perfectly reasonable 1970s buildings. For example. My take is that there's not a chance in hell that limiting supply is going to decrease price...so increasing supply is certainly worth a try. Ideally in concert with an inclusive zoning framework.

Yes, I agree with this. Additionally, by allowing areas to redevelop (infill), even if they are marketed as luxury, more people benefit from the increased/improved infrastructure, services and amenities previously whisked away to greenfield development that was/is occurring. Older parts of town were abandoned as cities grew outward. As someone who lives in the original downtown area of her city, I appreciate having access to shopping and other basic services again. I am currently sponsoring a project that will bring 328-656 sf single family homes. Not only is zoning an issue and require a public process to go through, but so are the building codes that require rooms to be a certain size. I am all for less restrictions. Here’s an article that talks about what you are saying much better than I can repeat:

www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/12/14/best-of-2015-the-gentrification-paradox?utm_campaign=meetedgar&utm_medium=social&utm_source=meetedgar.com

[sillygoosegirl]

Good stuff! I'm very excited to see what happens in Oregon with our new zoning rules. I live in an area on the edge between different types of zoning (commercial, large new SFHs, small old SFHs, old apartments, new apartments, and senior trailer community, all within 1/4 mile... and slightly further away are brand new luxury condos and apartments over hip new commercial spaces), and I think it's great. We need zoning that allows more places like this to exist, without needing the lucky happen stance of being on the border between differently zoned areas.

Great article! Exclusionary zoning is a way for whole communities to collectively cut off their nose to spite their face. On so many levels.